Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[2aguy]

4,000 people.......that is more than the number of innocent people murdered by guns each year...

No, we have 39,000 gun deaths a year. Most of those people did not deserve to die. THe only difference is when someone drowns, we don't say, "Well, that guy got convicted of smoking pot when he was 19, that makes him a criminal", because that would be, you know, retarded.

A lot of drowning deaths are proceeded by the words, "Hold my beer". But we don't make moral judgements about people who showed bad judgement before they discovered they weren't as good of swimmers as they though they were.

No we had 10,235 gun murders, according to the FBI and 23,941 suicides using a gun...

Suicide is not a gun issue, it is a mental health issue...the Japanese kill themselves at massively higher rates than Americans do and they use trains, buildings and house hold cleaners...

When people drown morons like you don't say ban all swimming pools.

 

[2aguy]

Shit head...you do the math....when you keep releasing the guys doing the shooting, you don't stop the shooting....you idiot......you lock up the shooters and the shootings stop.

Except we aren't talking about releasing "Shooters", we are talking about releasing people who got caught carrying a gun.

Again - 10 million arrests, 2 million prison cells. Where do you put the other 8 million people? And that's every year. You'll have to throw out the current prisoners to make room for some of the new ones.

The real problem is that you take a gun away from one of these guys, they can just get another, because the gun industry has made it soooo darned easy to get guns. The NRA wants criminals to get guns so every tiny-peckered white guy wants one, too.

Criminals are rational actors and respond to consequences......Japan shows this....if a criminal gets 30 years as a felon in possession of a gun, he won't carry that gun on a daily basis...cutting down on random shootings.

Japan has banned privately owned guns since the Meiji Restoration. You keep leaving that part out.

in 2019, there were 10,258 gun murders...70-80%, likely more, of the victims were criminals...murdered by other criminals....that leaves 2,051 innocent victims of gun murder....far lower than deaths by pool..........and of those, the majority are the friends and family of criminals....caught in the crossfire of actual criminals they know....

Actually, it was 14,500... and the number for 2020's are going to be horrible because all these "law abiding" gun owners were locked in their houses with their spouses for months.

Not to mention the 23,000 people a year who die of self-inflicted gun shot wounds.

But the important thing is, you need your guns to feel better about your shortcomings.

Japanese Yakuza get guns easily.....fully automatic weapons and grenades.....their last gang war was in 2011, and they called it the Season of the Pineapples because of all the grenades they were throwing at each other.....and hand grenades are illegal in Japan......

Japan stopped the Yakuza using guns by giving them massively long prison sentences.....possess a gun its 15 year, use a gun you get life......and the Yakuza now only use guns when they want a rival murdered knowing that whoever uses the gun is gone forever.....

As to the increase in the gun crime rate, that didn't go up because of the pandemic...it went up because shit heads like you are making war on the police...as is the entire democrat party...so the police aren't policing anymore....and the criminals know it...

Again...it is the policies of morons like you and the democrats that create our gun crime levels in democrat party controlled cities.....you moron.

 

[2aguy]

4,000 people.......that is more than the number of innocent people murdered by guns each year...

No, we have 39,000 gun deaths a year. Most of those people did not deserve to die. THe only difference is when someone drowns, we don't say, "Well, that guy got convicted of smoking pot when he was 19, that makes him a criminal", because that would be, you know, retarded.

A lot of drowning deaths are proceeded by the words, "Hold my beer". But we don't make moral judgements about people who showed bad judgement before they discovered they weren't as good of swimmers as they though they were.

First of all, half those are suicides so do not at all count in any way.
Some of those are accidents, which are going to happen to careless people anyway.
And the cause of most of those that are crimes are actually due to the War on Drugs, which entices people with huge profits, but is a cash economy, so then quickly devolves into guns and shootings.

And it clearly makes no sense to try to reduce gun deaths by passing more laws because anyone intent on committing a crime with a gun already intends to risk far greater penalty than the gun law.

It is gun control that caused police to increase not only in number, but also in corruption, abuse, and outright murder.
We need more armed citizens in order to decrease the abuses of police.

Over a 3rd of the deaths are suicides....which is why joe and the other anti-gun extremists lie about the deaths and lump them in with gun murder.......suicide mixed in with intentional breaking the law....

 

[2aguy]

With a .223 caliber? You are delusional. AR-15's chambered in .223, or even .22 are for suckers and fools. The whole reason there is such an uproar to protect them is because they are the most profitable guns made.

More people are killed with .22 calibers than any other.

The reason there's an uproar to protect AR-15s is because the Constitution guarantees our right to own them - that and the fact they're extremely fun to shoot.

The hell you say. You want to show me where the Constitution specifically guarantees you the right to own an AR-15. I mean this is news to me. What, did the founders have some kind of crystal ball that told them that in the future there will be this punk ass gun made to look like it is a military rifle that will provide huge profits for the gun manufacturers as it is sold to morons and fools with tiny ass peckers to make them feel like a man and it should be constitutionally protected? I mean I got to see that shit. Can't believe I missed it.

Yeah.....you should read the Heller decision......it explains it for you...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

Then....Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller extends his analysis in Friedman v Highland Park..


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

 

[2aguy]

The underlying cause of crime is that the criminal wants something someone else has. Period.

Not at all. The rest of the industrial world has nowhere near out crime rates.

Why?

They treat addiction as a medical problem.
They have extensive social programs to fight poverty.
They don't let every citizen have a gun who wants one.

So while the US has to lock up 2 million people, the Japanese only lock up 69,000. The Germans only lock up 78,000.

They have never had our criminal violence...until now....now they have imported violent 3rd world killers to run their illegal drug businesses and they aren't afraid to use guns to enforce their territories...


And.....Europeans have left it to their governments to murder innocent men, women and children...

American criminals kill other criminals....European governments murder innocent men, women and children.....after they disarmed their citizens, they murdered 12 million people who never committed any crime...

You prefer government murder...of innocents....


The Japanese are also far more law abiding and they submit to authority as a reflex....their police have massive powers over them and have a 95% conviction rate ....that is how they keep all crime low in Japan...you know this, and you lie about it...

Japan: Gun Control and People Control

Japan's low crime rate has almost nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with people control. Americans, used to their own traditions of freedom, would not accept Japan's system of people controls and gun controls.



Robbery in Japan is about as rare as murder. Japan's annual robbery rate is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; America's is 205.4. Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics? No, they don't. A realistic examination of Japanese culture leads to the conclusion that gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority. Further, none of the reasons which have made gun control succeed in Japan (in terms of disarming citizens) exist in the U.S.

The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.

For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.

In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.

The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community. Like school teachers, Japanese policemen rate high in public esteem, especially in the countryside. Community leaders and role models, the police are trained in calligraphy and Haiku composition. In police per capita, Japan far outranks all other major democracies.

15,000 koban "police boxes" are located throughout the cities. Citizens go to the 24-hour-a-day boxes not only for street directions, but to complain about day-to-day problems, such as noisy neighbors, or to ask advice on how to raise children. Some of the policemen and their families live in the boxes. Police box officers clear 74.6% of all criminal cases cleared. Police box officers also spend time teaching neighborhood youth judo or calligraphy. The officers even hand- write their own newspapers, with information about crime and accidents, "stories about good deeds by children, and opinions of
residents."

The police box system contrasts sharply with the practice in America. Here, most departments adopt a policy of "stranger policing." To prevent corruption, police are frequently rotated from one neighborhood to another. But as federal judge Charles Silberman writes, "the cure is worse than the disease, for officers develop no sense of identification with their beats, hence no emotional stake in improving the quality of life there."

Thus, the U.S. citizenry does not develop a supportive relationship with the police. One poll showed that 60% of police officers believe "it is difficult to persuade people to give patrolmen the information they need."

The Japanese police do not spend all their time in the koban boxes. As the Japanese government puts it: "Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police boxes." Making annual visits to each home in their beat, officers keep track of who lives where, and which family member to contact in case of emergency. The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.

Gun banners might rejoice at a society where the police keep such a sharp eye on citizens' guns. But the price is that the police keep an eye on everything.

Policemen are apt to tell people reading sexually-oriented magazines to read something more worthwhile. Japan's major official year-end police report includes statistics like "Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct." In 1985, the police determined that 37.4% of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had had sex "voluntarily." For the volunteers, 19.6% acted "out of curiosity", while for 18.1%, the motive was "liked particular boy." The year-end police report also includes sections on labor demands, and on anti-nuclear or anti-military demonstrations.

 

[2aguy]

No it won’t because we wouldn’t have a gun industry. People like you would sue them out of business with frivolous lawsuits within months,

Oh, we'd have a gun industry... but it would be a more responsible one.

One that actually didn't sell a semi-automatic and a 100 round clip to this guy.

View attachment 477939

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop guys like this.......they also stop rapes, robberies and murders.......

 

[Winston]

The hell you say. You want to show me where the Constitution specifically guarantees you the right to own an AR-15.

Very simple: An AR-15 is considered an arm. The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms.

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The hell you say. You want to show me where the Constitution specifically guarantees you the right to own an AR-15.

Very simple: An AR-15 is considered an arm. The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms.

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Do you have the facility and resources necessary to keep the radioactive components from endangering the people around it, and to keep them safe from theft?

If so, then knock yourself out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them. You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

 

[2aguy]

The hell you say. You want to show me where the Constitution specifically guarantees you the right to own an AR-15.

Very simple: An AR-15 is considered an arm. The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms.

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

That would fit the "Dangerous and Unusual...." See Heller.....AR-15 rifles...however, do not fit "Dangerous and Unusual...."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).

That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.

See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

 

[Winston]

So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?

Here's my list of laws.

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.

That's all you need to do, really. Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Punishing people for things they didn't do is just what fascists like you enjoy.......it doesn't solve any actual crime, but it does give you an adrenaline rush of power.....

Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain. You ever hear of Sta-Rite? General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family. I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder. But gun manufacturers, they get immunity. For what freakin damn reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them. You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

Well, here was the point I was making. Leftists always throw out, "Well, nuclear weapon" as a gotcha, because they think it's absurd, and they assume everyone else thinks like they do.

I have personally no problem with applying the same standard to owning a nuclear weapon as I do to guns. I am doing Winston the courtesy of assuming, for the sake of argument, that he's a reasonably intelligent, decent, law-abiding person who has no desire to go around nuking cities willy-nilly, or to see his neighbors die of radiation poisoning, or to have someone who would want those things get the ability to make them happen.

Therefore, as long as he had the capabilities to reasonably prevent any of those things happening, I wouldn't feel any more bothered by him having a nuclear weapon than I do by him owning a gun. Why should I? So long as the above requirements are met, his owning a nuke is no danger to me. And - here's the operative point - so long as the same requirements are met, neither is someone owning an AR-15, or any other gun.

Admittedly, meeting those requirements is a lot easier for a gun than it is for a nuke. But it isn't the immediate "Gotcha!!" that leftists assume it is when they blather it out, and they really need to retire the whole asinine attempt at shutting down conversation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?

Here's my list of laws.

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.

That's all you need to do, really. Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Punishing people for things they didn't do is just what fascists like you enjoy.......it doesn't solve any actual crime, but it does give you an adrenaline rush of power.....

Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain. You ever hear of Sta-Rite? General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family. I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder. But gun manufacturers, they get immunity. For what freakin damn reason.

Sorry, not the same thing. We do NOT hold pool makers, or car makers, or any other manufacturer responsible in the same way that leftists want to hold gun manufacturers responsible. Your own examples prove it. Sta-Rite wasn't sued because their product worked exactly as it was supposed to and someone used it incorrectly and got hurt; they were sued because their product was badly made and inherently unsafe. Likewise, talcum powder is inherently unsafe; it's not like it was a perfectly safe product and someone decided to eat the whole bottle instead of sprinkling it on their tush and died. I don't know which General Motors case you're talking about, since you were very vague, but I'm guessing it also wasn't a case of a perfectly functional car that someone chose to drive into oncoming traffic.

 

[Blues Man]

So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?

Here's my list of laws.

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.

That's all you need to do, really. Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Punishing people for things they didn't do is just what fascists like you enjoy.......it doesn't solve any actual crime, but it does give you an adrenaline rush of power.....

Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain. You ever hear of Sta-Rite? General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family. I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder. But gun manufacturers, they get immunity. For what freakin damn reason.

Not the same.

If you buy a new gun and it blows up in your hand the first time you fire it you can sue that gun manufacturer.

But holding a manufacturer responsible for anything another person does with their product is another thing entirely.

Are GM and Budweiser a held responsible for the guy who gets drunk and kills people when he plows into a gaggle of grannies?

 

[Winston]

So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?

Here's my list of laws.

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.

That's all you need to do, really. Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Punishing people for things they didn't do is just what fascists like you enjoy.......it doesn't solve any actual crime, but it does give you an adrenaline rush of power.....

Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain. You ever hear of Sta-Rite? General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family. I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder. But gun manufacturers, they get immunity. For what freakin damn reason.

Sorry, not the same thing. We do NOT hold pool makers, or car makers, or any other manufacturer responsible in the same way that leftists want to hold gun manufacturers responsible. Your own examples prove it. Sta-Rite wasn't sued because their product worked exactly as it was supposed to and someone used it incorrectly and got hurt; they were sued because their product was badly made and inherently unsafe. Likewise, talcum powder is inherently unsafe; it's not like it was a perfectly safe product and someone decided to eat the whole bottle instead of sprinkling it on their tush and died. I don't know which General Motors case you're talking about, since you were very vague, but I'm guessing it also wasn't a case of a perfectly functional car that someone chose to drive into oncoming traffic.

Nope, wrong about Sta-Rite. They were sued, not for how the product was made, but because they did not put a warning label on the product concerning removing the drain cover. The product was made correctly. The drain was installed correctly by the installer. But some kids, being kids, took the drain cover off. And a girl had her insides sucked out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?

Here's my list of laws.

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.

That's all you need to do, really. Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Punishing people for things they didn't do is just what fascists like you enjoy.......it doesn't solve any actual crime, but it does give you an adrenaline rush of power.....

Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain. You ever hear of Sta-Rite? General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family. I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder. But gun manufacturers, they get immunity. For what freakin damn reason.

Sorry, not the same thing. We do NOT hold pool makers, or car makers, or any other manufacturer responsible in the same way that leftists want to hold gun manufacturers responsible. Your own examples prove it. Sta-Rite wasn't sued because their product worked exactly as it was supposed to and someone used it incorrectly and got hurt; they were sued because their product was badly made and inherently unsafe. Likewise, talcum powder is inherently unsafe; it's not like it was a perfectly safe product and someone decided to eat the whole bottle instead of sprinkling it on their tush and died. I don't know which General Motors case you're talking about, since you were very vague, but I'm guessing it also wasn't a case of a perfectly functional car that someone chose to drive into oncoming traffic.

Nope, wrong about Sta-Rite. They were sued, not for how the product was made, but because they did not put a warning label on the product concerning removing the drain cover. The product was made correctly. The drain was installed correctly by the installer. But some kids, being kids, took the drain cover off. And a girl had her insides sucked out.

Yeah, um, providing explanations as to how to use it properly is part of making the product. Moron.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain. You ever hear of Sta-Rite? General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family. I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder. But gun manufacturers, they get immunity. For what freakin damn reason.

If you find a big screen you wanted on Craigslist, and the seller said he'll meet you in some empty parking lot somewhere and robs you, do you get to sue Craigslist?

So we take the liability protection from gun manufacturers and sellers. Now every commie city and individual can sue those entities, even a criminal who was shot by police, what do you think would happen to those places? If you guess they'd have to close up, you'd be exactly right.

The Communists are looking for ways around the Constitution because they hate the document and it interferes with their desire to have total control over the people. Now you see Dementia talking about ghost guns. What does he really want to do? He wants to make it illegal for people to get parts for their guns when they want to alter them or it needs repair. Because once people sue the gun manufacturers and stores out of business, there will be no place to buy firearms from.

Sanders also voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which provided some protections for licensed manufacturers, dealers, sellers of firearms or ammunition, and trade associations from civil lawsuits resulting from the misuse of firearms or ammunition. But gun makers and dealers did not receive a “total pass,” as Clinton claimed.

As the Congressional Research Service pointed out in a 2012 report, the legislation included six exceptions where civil suits could still be brought, including cases in which a firearm seller acted with negligence, cases involving the transfer of a firearm with the knowledge that it would be used to commit a crime, and cases in which manufacturers and sellers marketed or sold a firearm in violation of state or federal law.

FactChecking the Fourth Democratic Debate - FactCheck.org

Sunday showdown in South Carolina: Democrats highlight differences on health care, guns and more.

www.factcheck.org

 

[Winston]

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them. You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

Well I got news for you. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from. Sawed off shotguns are banned. Is that unconstitutional now? And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon. But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport. They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization. But fighter jets are certainly "arms".

Here is the thing. The second amendment was always interpreted as a collective right, not an individual right. Almost every legitimate scholar of the time period agrees with that interpretation. Even the NRA supported limitations on gun ownership, lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968, which vastly expanded gun regulations in response to the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

While you can go to dozens of pro-gun websites and find small quotes from Thomas Jefferson or George Mason concerning individual gun ownership, the truth of the matter is that during the debates, both during the Second Continental Congress and the debates in the State houses, there was very little mention of hunting, almost nothing was said about personal defense. Nope, gun ownership was a collective right born of the necessity of a Militia. That was what the debate was about. Honestly, at the time individual ownership of guns was dangerous. That was why most cities required guns to be stored at the armory. It was to prevent Native Americans from raiding a home and stealing the guns. Which is precisely what happened right here where I am sitting more than three hundred years ago. In 1700 there were over a hundred white settlers living in this part of Western North Carolina. By 1720 you could count them on your hands. To the east, Native Americans had killed hundreds of settlers, women impaled on stakes, infanticide, it was absolutely brutal. All that was fresh on the memory of the founding fathers, they knew vividly the dangers of "arms" falling into enemy hands. Today, no one even knows about the "Indian Wars" like the Tuscarora War, the most brutal of them all.

Nope, you, and other gun proponents adamantly claiming an individual second amendment right, and especially this ordeal about assault weapons, are mere pawns in a game about MONEY and PROFITS. I mean, for the love of morality, we have a professional army, there is no draft, and militias are little more than another professional fighting force. The founders would be appalled. A professional army violates everything that they stood for, that they fought for. A professional army and an individual right to bear arms that has no relationship whatsoever to a militia. Damn skippy, the founders are turning in their graves. I mean there is a whole lot of things wrong with America right now, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But this shit is not about right and about left. There is no right and left to ETHICS. This nation was founded during a time of great ethical awareness. Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Hegal, Bentham. I mean it was the golden age. But a divided society, constructed that way on purpose I might add, with competing camps siloed in their own echo chambers, has absolutely destroyed this nation. There is no better place to break out, to find real freedom from our slave masters, than the topic of gun control, the second amendment. Time we returned to our roots and re-establish a nation dedicated to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

 

[Winston]

So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?

Here's my list of laws.

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.

That's all you need to do, really. Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Punishing people for things they didn't do is just what fascists like you enjoy.......it doesn't solve any actual crime, but it does give you an adrenaline rush of power.....

Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain. You ever hear of Sta-Rite? General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family. I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder. But gun manufacturers, they get immunity. For what freakin damn reason.

Sorry, not the same thing. We do NOT hold pool makers, or car makers, or any other manufacturer responsible in the same way that leftists want to hold gun manufacturers responsible. Your own examples prove it. Sta-Rite wasn't sued because their product worked exactly as it was supposed to and someone used it incorrectly and got hurt; they were sued because their product was badly made and inherently unsafe. Likewise, talcum powder is inherently unsafe; it's not like it was a perfectly safe product and someone decided to eat the whole bottle instead of sprinkling it on their tush and died. I don't know which General Motors case you're talking about, since you were very vague, but I'm guessing it also wasn't a case of a perfectly functional car that someone chose to drive into oncoming traffic.

Nope, wrong about Sta-Rite. They were sued, not for how the product was made, but because they did not put a warning label on the product concerning removing the drain cover. The product was made correctly. The drain was installed correctly by the installer. But some kids, being kids, took the drain cover off. And a girl had her insides sucked out.

Yeah, um, providing explanations as to how to use it properly is part of making the product. Moron.

Moron? Wow, stupid *****. So, if a gun manufacturer doesn't clearly indicate within the packaging that it is imperative to keep that gun secure and unloaded and some little kid finds Daddy's loaded gun and accidently shoots his friend, which has happened TWICE IN THE LAST FREAKIN MONTH in my area, then the families can sue the gun manufacturer? Is that what you are saying? I mean pull your freakin head out of your ass.

 

[woodwork201]

And, in these cases, it is even more clear that the rapist didn't do it your way; they clearly kept the gun because they raped with the gun:

I reviewed your posts and nowhere did the first two links state the rapist continued holding a gun during the act. The last one was from another country somewhere and we are talking about the US here.

Honestly, I expected better from you based on your posts I've seen so far. You're just twisting every logical argument to make it fit your emotion based gun control objectives. That's what I'd expect from the most left of the leftists here. Laws preventing rapists from having guns do nothing to prevent rapes any more than do laws against rape serve to reduce rape.

So you really believe that rape sentences should be reduced for rapists that use a knife? You're a gun controller, just as are any of the most left on this board and Joe Biden, himself. The only difference between you and Joe Biden, you and David Chipman, is the amount of gun control you're calling for.

Your last link, the same thing. It was obviously not in this country. Nowhere in that article does it state he held the gun to her during the act.

I never said a rapist should get a reduced sentence if a knife is used. You twisted what I said. What I really said is that a convicted felon using a gun they were not legally allowed to have will get additional time because they used a firearm. Once a felon is released from prison, he is allowed to carry a knife within legal length. If he uses that knife to commit rape, then it's just part of the atttack. However a felon using a firearm is an additional crime which means he gets additional time in prison. There is no reduced anything here.

I didn't say that those first links said that the rapist put down the gun. I said that they didn't make any claim that the gun was put down. You said that the rapist puts down the gun before the rape. I'd like to see where you get such an idea. Please share your findings, research, or experience. Otherwise, it's just plain bullshit.

And you think US rapists with guns behave differently than rapists with guns in other countries? Really?

And you most certainly did say that rapists with guns should get longer sentences which absolutely means that rapists without guns should get lesser sentences.

You're justifying your support for gun control on longer sentences for just 6% of convicted rapists rather than supporting longer sentences for all rapists. The logic doesn't hold and you know it. You simply support gun control and that lame excuse supports your support for gun control.